Boris Johnson's Latest 'Gaff'

Sad but true Luckylegs9. We need the mavericks to say what others think but are afraid of saying. PC approaches allowed the ghastly Rotherham and other city abuses of young girls to go on for far too long.

He has the right to express an opinion, or is that not allowed here any more? I was offended by Life of Brian, but didn't watch it. Free Speech is our culture, do we really want to give that up. I dislike the Burkha, it looking threatening to me, but it's not banned here like other countries. Boris says what the majority of the population think, he makes me cringe a lot, I hope he carries on, we need people that speak their minds. It is not a Police State.

Can anyone seeing him being joined by Nigel Farage et al?
After all, UKIP got a good percentage of the vote in the last election, though only one seat in Parliament.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

Pandering to the lowest is referred to as Populism these days. Johnson has met with populist guru Bannon, and is trying out a new persona as the UK's Trump. Enough people fell for Farage to encourage him - another constructed image: "jolly good chap who likes a pint and a fag". I remember being at a business breakfast years ago, when BJ was thinking of standing for Mayor, and people saying they might vote for him because he was entertaining. Give me the non-entertaining Gordon Brown or John Major any day of the week. This thread is long because Johnson is still very, very dangerous. And not just to Muslims.

If only it was just a harmless comment goldengirl

Either lots of really politically naïve people or they are being faux naïve!

No senior politician of the ruing party makes a statement , in a column he is paid to write, without thinking about it very carefully & the editor being in cahoots!

ELEVEN pages on a comment by Boris Johnson in a newspaper article. That man has certainly got that 'something'!!!

Joelsnan if you read my post you will see I say that I do not like women to wear face covering!

You have also put words into my mouth that I did not say!
< "you say we should wear what we want no matter how provocative it may be and yet you would not allow people to say what they want."> I DID NOT SAY THAT.

I do not believe Johnson is a 'silly old buffoon' who made a careless off the cuff remark. He is a highly skilled politician who has cultivated his persona. He is keen , having lost a role in the cabinet, to maintain a powerbase.

He is making connections with well known racists. His statement itself may not be racist but it certainly appeals to racists as he knew full well it would. He has made the statement thoughtfully and carefully to get a specific reaction.

VS alert!

I agree JessM and I support the Tory party!! No, I've never criticised the way my children or their friends dressed and certainly not DH! I have always believed in encouragement and praise, not criticism and disapproval which only makes a young person even more determined to shock and outrage older people. My parents took exactly the same attitude when I was young! It could be desperately disappointing!!!

We are losing our precious freedom of speech and our ability to laugh at ourselves if we allow issues like these to be blown out of contexr

That is a very valid point. What BJ said was not technically racist. And don’t you think some people, of all races, political persuasions, etc are just too sensitive these days?

Yes, I take your point JessM but we can’t always pander to the lowest common denominator.

By launching this he has encouraged those who think it is ok - or even funny - to shout abuse at women and girls in any kind Muslim dress, to spit at them, or to try to pull off their head coverings. I remember a Muslim colleague telling me years ago that she had "had a terrible time" after the attack on the Twin Towers. Johnson is pandering to the extreme right - and courting their support. Remember what happened to Jo Cox - an MP assassinated by a right wing terrorist for her inclusive values. A racist man, wound up by what he has read on the Internet, targeting a woman. Johnson is indeed "unfit for public office"

PECS
It is about the use of a tiny minority to make a huge political 'race' statement and to appeal to those who do hate Muslims/ are fearful of people who appear different and those who want UK to only be for white middle class people. I believe it will embolden people to act on that hate.

Can you please explain this statement, especially in the context that the veil is banned in many muslim countries and especially in the most holiest place in Islam, the Kabba in Mecca Saudi Arabia where Muslims perform their Haj pilgrimage.

PECS
Religion in not a race.
Just about everyone criticises others dress, obviously not in a newspaper, i would imagine even you have criticised your husband, children (if you have/had) them) for wearing clothes that you didnt like. Have you never walked around a shopping mall and raised an eyebrow, or whispered to a friend 'did you see that!' Actually women are the worst critics of male attire.
We are losing our precious freedom of speech and our ability to laugh at ourselves if we allow issues like these to be blown out of context.
You say we should wear what we want no matter how provocative it may be and yet you would not allow people to say what they want.
It is not a man/woman thing it is societal.

And a decent hair cut!!
Of course I'm aware of that saying J.n! I don't actually agree with it! Words can be very hurtful as many a person on social media will tell you, sometimes leading to tragic consequences. So, 'words can never hurt you' Well, actually they can! in more ways than one.

I have already said that I don't think it is either anti-Islamic or racist to condemn the burkha. Many people in many Islamic countries dislike it and consider it unnecessary. What is interesting that once again a man thinks he can say what women should wear. If women are wearing the burkha by choice why should he have the right to condemn them? Any more than he should have the right to criticise a young women in a skimpy revealing outfit. Women don't do it about men, although in BJs case we might all advise him invest in some new better fitting suits.

Allygran you sound like Perry Mason! 'I put it to you PECS...'

Johnson met the known white supremacist, Steve Bannon, just a week before he made his statement about the few 100 women who wear either a niqab or burka in UK. These women pose no real threat to anyone. It was quite a deliberate attempt to stir up /appeal to the right wing. I do not think it is a big step to move to talk about Brexit etc. It is all part of the same thing: growing xenophobia, isolationism and unsettling the citizens of the UK in a divide and rule strategy. It is exactly how Trump got to be president.

As I stated clearly I do not particularly like women to wear the niqab or burka. My argument is not about the wearing of a particular item of clothing.

It is about the use of a tiny minority to make a huge political 'race' statement and to appeal to those who do hate Muslims/ are fearful of people who appear different and those who want UK to only be for white middle class people. I believe it will embolden people to act on that hate.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”

Does anybody really believe that?
Internet bullying -name calling
Racism -name calling
Religious intolerance -name calling
Apart from which name calling is all too often the weapon of choice of the bully and the coward

Niggly
When I used to run crying to my mum saying that someone had called me something I didnt like, she used to say: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but calling will not hurt me.
Are you aware of this saying?

For me it's not the discussion of burka's that is the issue it's the language Boris used to describe these women who wear them. He obviously did it in order to make the article he wrote front page news and cause a furore. Without colourful language it would have probably passed by with very little comment. Unfortunately, although he has opened up discussion which is a good thing, he has also opened up the potential for these women to be abused by every vile person who will now see them as fair game. I agree with everything ally and others have said, but I don't agree with name calling, apart from being rude and demeaning, it can be dangerous and lead to horrible unforeseen consequences.

And my opinions about Johnson’s choice of words are unchanged. I would be equally offended by comparisons of nuns with penguins.
If I choose not to engage in a discussion with those who think it’s “all a bit of a laugh”, “justified”,”off the cuff banter”, “PC gone mad “ or the “Holier than thous having a field day” so be it.
The letterbox/bank robber analogy is certainly NOT what “most people” are thinking.

The first country to ban the wearing and making of burkas was 99% Muslim Morocco in 2016.
In Islam's holiest place the Ka'aba in Mecca facial covering is strictly forbidden. Why is it OK here?

Whilst taking a coffee break in the city and sitting in a window seat (I love to people watch), my attention was drawn to a ‘person’ walking past wearing the burka. Without a doubt this ‘person’ was a man. Stature, walk, hands and feet (in sandals). Burkas do not have a place in the public domain for many valid reasons.

MawBroon this thread, like so many others on GN has moved beyond the OP. BJ's much misquoted article opened up an important topic for discussion.

I am more than happy to talk about that Jane10 but that was NOT what this thread purported to be about.
Discuss the principle by all means but insulting those who wear the veil etc is not the way to do it and Johnson knows that so why did he do it?
It is not the first time he has said the wrong thing, but I question that it is just a gaffe or banter.
In November 2017 he apologised, admitting that his remarks about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratliff were unhelpful and the poor woman’s prison sentence in Iran was extended.
Is it just arrogance then?

MawBroon take Boris out of the situation, should we be discussing the proliferation of women with veiled faces in public? I think we should for all the reasons raised by others. It is intimidating and not tolerated if done by men. In an open society we should at least be able to see the faces of people we are attempting to communicate with.